PM 490 Week 3 Execution and Monitoring Report Example

Rotten Sills and a Ten O'Clock Curfew: A Mid-Project Execution and Monitoring Report on a Cidery's Barn Conversion

[Student Name]

University of Phoenix

PM/490: Project Management Capstone

Week 3 Assignment

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Stone Lantern Cider Works, its status data, issues and changes are composites written for a model paper.

Summary for the Owners

As of June 15, the barn conversion at Stone Lantern Cider Works, the imaginary Hudson Valley cidery whose capstone project this course follows, is about 9 working days behind its baseline and about $38,000 over the planned cost of work completed. Structural work finished on May 22, three weeks late, because rotten sills under the north and east walls were far worse than probes showed. The planning board approved the special use permit with limits on events. The September 1 opening remains achievable, with float reduced from two weeks to about four days. The forecast final cost is about $1,163,000 before remaining contingency, within the $1.18 million budget. Two decisions are needed this week.

Progress Against the Plan

Complete: all approvals except the liquor authority's final inspection; septic expansion and parking; structural repairs and roof reinforcement; new floor system; exterior siding restoration on three of four walls. In progress: interior electrical and plumbing rough-in, about 60 percent complete; restrooms framing; deck footings. Not started: interior finishes, tasting bar installation, furniture, point of sale. Hiring has begun: a tasting room manager starts July 1 and eight part-time staff are scheduled to start in mid-August.

Performance Measures

The current standard recommends comparing progress with baselines using measures suited to the project and interpreting the results for decisions (Project Management Institute [PMI], 2021). At June 15, the value of work planned to date was $742,000; the value of work actually completed, measured by the budgeted cost of finished work packages, was $706,000; and the actual cost was $744,000. The project has finished $36,000 less work than planned, a schedule index of about 0.95, and has spent $38,000 more than budgeted for the work done, a cost index of about 0.95. Both indexes trace mainly to the structural work.

Issue 1: Sill Rot

When the contractor removed interior boards in March, the sills under two walls were rotted for 140 linear feet, against 60 estimated from probes. The per-foot allowance covered the price, but the extra length added about $44,000 and three weeks. Delgado approved the work up to her limit and took the rest to the owners, who approved it the same day because the barn could not be used without it. To recover time, the contractor added a second carpenter crew for interior framing in June.

The per-foot price did its job: the surprise cost more, but nobody argued about how much.

Issue 2: Planning Board Conditions

The planning board approved the permit in February with three conditions: no more than 18 private events a year in the first two years, amplified music ending by 10 p.m. and a landscaped berm along the road. The charter's objective of 24 events is no longer possible. The owners approved a change revising the objective to 18 events with a higher average size, keeping the expected events revenue within about 10 percent of the original. The berm adds about $9,000.

Quality Results

Quality checks have caught two problems early. The engineer's sign-off on structural work, required before interior framing could cover it, found two post bases bearing on the old foundation stones without the steel plates the drawings called for; the contractor added them in a day. The architect's preservation review rejected a sample of replacement siding whose board width did not match the original, and the supplier milled a matching profile. Neither problem would have been cheap to fix after walls were closed or siding painted.

Change Log

Change 1, sill and post replacement beyond estimate: $44,000, three weeks; approved by owners, March 30.

Change 2, landscaped berm required by permit: $9,000; approved by Delgado, February 20.

Change 3, revised events objective from 24 to 18: no cost; approved by owners, February 22.

Change 4, pending: upgrade the tasting bar top from laminate to reclaimed barn wood from the removed sills' sound sections, $6,500; awaiting owners.

Risks Updated

Planning board delay is closed, replaced by the new risk of noise complaints from neighbors once events start, mitigated by the events plan and the berm. Hidden structural damage is closed now that structure is complete. Contractor availability is reduced since the crew is committed through August. Material prices are partly closed, since timber and windows were bought in January. A new risk has appeared: the liquor authority's final inspection could take longer than planned in its busy summer season; the response is to request the inspection date as soon as the certificate of occupancy is scheduled.

Communication and Reporting Climate

Snow and Keil (2002) found that project status reports can be distorted both by errors in the reporter's perception and by a bias toward reporting good news. Keil et al. (2004) showed that people were less willing to report bad news about troubled projects when the organizational climate discouraged it. Delgado and the owners agreed at the start that bad news goes in the Friday update the week it is known, and that a delay reported early is not held against the reporter. The sill problem was reported the day it was found.

Forecast

If interior work continues at its current pace with the second crew, finishes complete by August 12 and the certificate of occupancy follows by August 22, leaving about four working days of float. Remaining costs are expected to run near budget, giving a forecast final cost of about $1,163,000 including approved changes, leaving about $17,000 of the $1.18 million unspent if no further problems arise.

Recommendations and Decisions Needed

First, decide on change 4 this week, since the bar fabricator needs the material by July 1. Second, approve paying the second crew through July, already within the forecast. Third, request the liquor authority's inspection date now. Fourth, hold all further scope additions until after opening.

Conclusion

At mid-June the barn conversion is late and slightly over cost for reasons that are understood and controlled. Structural surprises were absorbed by allowances and a decision made in a day, and planning board conditions led to a revised objective rather than a dispute. The opening date holds with little margin, which makes the next ten weeks of interior work the period to watch most closely.

References

Keil, M., Smith, H. J., Pawlowski, S., & Jin, L. (2004). "Why didn't somebody tell me?": Climate, information asymmetry, and bad news about troubled projects. ACM SIGMIS Database, 35(2), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/1007965.1007971

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.). Project Management Institute.

Snow, A. P., & Keil, M. (2002). The challenge of accurate software project status reporting: A two-stage model incorporating status errors and reporting bias. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 49(4), 491-504. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2002.807290